Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 8

Hi Masahiro, On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 13:44:19 +0900 Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > Stephen, could you revert this commit for today's linux-next ? Sorry, I discovered your email too late :-( -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell pgpsF4ld4i1FG.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 8

Hi Heiko, Stephen, On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:53 AM Heiko Carstens wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 06:17:39PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20190807: > > > > I reverted a commit from the kbuild-current tree by request. > > Hello Masahiro, > > it looks like

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 8

On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 06:17:39PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20190807: > > I reverted a commit from the kbuild-current tree by request. Hello Masahiro, it looks like there is (another?) bug in kbuild. With your patch commit

linux-next: Tree for Aug 8

Hi all, Changes since 20190807: I reverted a commit from the kbuild-current tree by request. The dma-mapping-fixes tree gained a build failure for which I reverted the merge of that tree. The bpf-next tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree. The crypto tree still had its build failure for

linux-next: Tree for Aug 8

Hi all, Changes since 20180807: The vfs tree still had its build failure but today I applied a suggested patch and I have still disabled CONFIG_SAMPLE_STATX. The kvm tree gained a semantic conflict against the tip tree (actually yesterday) for which I applied a merge fix patch. Non-merge

linux-next: Tree for Aug 8

Hi all, Changes since 20180807: The vfs tree still had its build failure but today I applied a suggested patch and I have still disabled CONFIG_SAMPLE_STATX. The kvm tree gained a semantic conflict against the tip tree (actually yesterday) for which I applied a merge fix patch. Non-merge

linux-next: Tree for Aug 8

Hi all, Changes since 20170807: The rdma tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree. I again reverted a commit from the staging tree that was causing overnight build failures. The userns tree gained a conflict against the mips tree. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 4689 4882

linux-next: Tree for Aug 8

Hi all, Changes since 20170807: The rdma tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree. I again reverted a commit from the staging tree that was causing overnight build failures. The userns tree gained a conflict against the mips tree. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 4689 4882

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 8

Hi Andrew, On Mon, 8 Aug 2016 13:51:22 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote: > > On 08/08/16 13:17, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Please do not add material destined for v4.9 to your linux-next included > > branches until after v4.8-rc1 has been released. > > Which has

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 8

Hi Andrew, On Mon, 8 Aug 2016 13:51:22 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote: > > On 08/08/16 13:17, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Please do not add material destined for v4.9 to your linux-next included > > branches until after v4.8-rc1 has been released. > > Which has now happened :) Yes, I will

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 8

On 08/08/16 13:17, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Please do not add material destined for v4.9 to your linux-next included branches until after v4.8-rc1 has been released. Which has now happened :) -- Andrew Donnellan OzLabs, ADL Canberra andrew.donnel...@au1.ibm.com IBM Australia

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 8

On 08/08/16 13:17, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Please do not add material destined for v4.9 to your linux-next included branches until after v4.8-rc1 has been released. Which has now happened :) -- Andrew Donnellan OzLabs, ADL Canberra andrew.donnel...@au1.ibm.com IBM Australia

linux-next: Tree for Aug 8

Hi all, Please do not add material destined for v4.9 to your linux-next included branches until after v4.8-rc1 has been released. Changes since 20160805: Linus' tree gained a build failure for which I disabled a new driver. The sound-asoc tree gained a build failure so I used the version from

linux-next: Tree for Aug 8

Hi all, Please do not add material destined for v4.9 to your linux-next included branches until after v4.8-rc1 has been released. Changes since 20160805: Linus' tree gained a build failure for which I disabled a new driver. The sound-asoc tree gained a build failure so I used the version from

linux-next: Tree for Aug 8

Hi all, Please do not add code intended for v3.18 until after v3.17-rc1 is released. Changes since 20140807: Removed tree: hch-vfs The ext3 tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20140807. The modules tree lost its build failure. The mmc-uh tree still had its build

linux-next: Tree for Aug 8

Hi all, Please do not add code intended for v3.18 until after v3.17-rc1 is released. Changes since 20140807: Removed tree: hch-vfs The ext3 tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20140807. The modules tree lost its build failure. The mmc-uh tree still had its build

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 8 (not CONFIG_PCI_MSI conflict)

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 7:18 AM, Jason Cooper wrote: > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 08:01:49AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Jason Cooper wrote: >> > Randy, >> > >> > On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 09:41:38AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> >> On 08/09/13 07:59, Jason Cooper

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 8 (not CONFIG_PCI_MSI conflict)

On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 08:01:49AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Jason Cooper wrote: > > Randy, > > > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 09:41:38AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > >> On 08/09/13 07:59, Jason Cooper wrote: > >> > Randy, > >> > > >> > On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 8 (not CONFIG_PCI_MSI conflict)

On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 08:01:49AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Jason Cooper ja...@lakedaemon.net wrote: Randy, On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 09:41:38AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: On 08/09/13 07:59, Jason Cooper wrote: Randy, On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 8 (not CONFIG_PCI_MSI conflict)

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 7:18 AM, Jason Cooper ja...@lakedaemon.net wrote: On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 08:01:49AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Jason Cooper ja...@lakedaemon.net wrote: Randy, On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 09:41:38AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: On

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 8 (not CONFIG_PCI_MSI conflict)

On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Jason Cooper wrote: > Randy, > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 09:41:38AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 08/09/13 07:59, Jason Cooper wrote: >> > Randy, >> > >> > On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 01:03:04PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> >> On 08/08/13 00:08, Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 8 (not CONFIG_PCI_MSI conflict)

On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Jason Cooper ja...@lakedaemon.net wrote: Randy, On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 09:41:38AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: On 08/09/13 07:59, Jason Cooper wrote: Randy, On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 01:03:04PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: On 08/08/13 00:08, Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 8 (not CONFIG_PCI_MSI conflict)

On 08/09/13 11:50, Jason Cooper wrote: > Randy, > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 09:41:38AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 08/09/13 07:59, Jason Cooper wrote: >>> Randy, >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 01:03:04PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: On 08/08/13 00:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 8 (not CONFIG_PCI_MSI conflict)

Randy, On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 09:41:38AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 08/09/13 07:59, Jason Cooper wrote: > > Randy, > > > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 01:03:04PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > >> On 08/08/13 00:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> Changes since 20130807: > >>> >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 8 (not CONFIG_PCI_MSI conflict)

On 08/09/13 07:59, Jason Cooper wrote: > Randy, > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 01:03:04PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 08/08/13 00:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Changes since 20130807: >>> >> >> on i386 and x86_64: >> when CONFIG_PCI_MSI is not enabled: >> >> There are many of

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 8 (not CONFIG_PCI_MSI conflict)

Randy, On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 01:03:04PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 08/08/13 00:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20130807: > > > > on i386 and x86_64: > when CONFIG_PCI_MSI is not enabled: > > There are many of these errors: > include/linux/msi.h:65:6:

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 8 (not CONFIG_PCI_MSI conflict)

Randy, On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 01:03:04PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: On 08/08/13 00:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Changes since 20130807: on i386 and x86_64: when CONFIG_PCI_MSI is not enabled: There are many of these errors: include/linux/msi.h:65:6: error: expected

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 8 (not CONFIG_PCI_MSI conflict)

On 08/09/13 07:59, Jason Cooper wrote: Randy, On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 01:03:04PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: On 08/08/13 00:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Changes since 20130807: on i386 and x86_64: when CONFIG_PCI_MSI is not enabled: There are many of these errors:

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 8 (not CONFIG_PCI_MSI conflict)

Randy, On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 09:41:38AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: On 08/09/13 07:59, Jason Cooper wrote: Randy, On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 01:03:04PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: On 08/08/13 00:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Changes since 20130807: on i386 and x86_64:

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 8 (not CONFIG_PCI_MSI conflict)

On 08/09/13 11:50, Jason Cooper wrote: Randy, On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 09:41:38AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: On 08/09/13 07:59, Jason Cooper wrote: Randy, On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 01:03:04PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: On 08/08/13 00:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Changes since

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 8 (not CONFIG_PCI_MSI conflict)

On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 01:03:04PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 08/08/13 00:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20130807: > > > > on i386 and x86_64: > when CONFIG_PCI_MSI is not enabled: > > There are many of these errors: > include/linux/msi.h:65:6: error:

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 8 (not CONFIG_PCI_MSI conflict)

On 08/08/13 00:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20130807: > on i386 and x86_64: when CONFIG_PCI_MSI is not enabled: There are many of these errors: include/linux/msi.h:65:6: error: expected identifier or '(' before 'void' include/linux/msi.h:65:6: error: expected ')'

linux-next: Tree for Aug 8

Hi all, Changes since 20130807: The mvebu tree lost its build failure and gained a conflict against the i2c tree. The renesas tree gained a conflict against the leds tree. I have created today's linux-next tree at

linux-next: Tree for Aug 8

Hi all, Changes since 20130807: The mvebu tree lost its build failure and gained a conflict against the i2c tree. The renesas tree gained a conflict against the leds tree. I have created today's linux-next tree at

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 8 (not CONFIG_PCI_MSI conflict)

On 08/08/13 00:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Changes since 20130807: on i386 and x86_64: when CONFIG_PCI_MSI is not enabled: There are many of these errors: include/linux/msi.h:65:6: error: expected identifier or '(' before 'void' include/linux/msi.h:65:6: error: expected ')' before

Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 8 (not CONFIG_PCI_MSI conflict)

On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 01:03:04PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: On 08/08/13 00:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Changes since 20130807: on i386 and x86_64: when CONFIG_PCI_MSI is not enabled: There are many of these errors: include/linux/msi.h:65:6: error: expected identifier